IMPORTANT POINT
The court held that a Magistrate cannot review or recall an order once signed, as it violates established judicial procedures and principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ seeking the following reliefs:-

(I) For issuance of writ in the nature of ‘Certiorari’or any other appropriate writ for release of the dughter-in-law of the petitioner namely, Shweta Kumari forthwith, who has illegally and erroneously been detained in the Child Welfare Committee (C.W.C.), Biharsharif, Nalanda since 27.05.2025 (now shifted to C.W.C., Nawada) by the order dated 27.05.2025 passed in Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 55/2025 passed by the Learned court of Sri Divyesh Kumar, J.M.-V 1st Class, Hilsa, Nalanda by reviewing his own order dated 30.04.2025 having without authority of law and the same is not permissible in the entire provisions of B.N.S.S., 2023 and by quashing the order dated 27.05.2025 passed in Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 55/2025 by reviewing its own order although the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clarified in catena of judgements that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now B.N.S.S., 2023) that empowers a Magistrate to review or recall an order passed by him.

ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for payment of adequate compensation to the petitioner/victim woman for illegal detention and also take punitive action against the police authorities/personnel, who are in connivance with private respondent no.-11, in the interest of justice.

iii) For issuance of any other order or orders which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Briefly stated facts leading to the institution of the present writ are one FIR was lodged by respondent no. 11 against the FIR named accused persons and others for forcibly taking away of her minor daughter and Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 55 of 2025 has been registered under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘ BNS ’). Subsequently, the victim girl was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate and her statement under Section 183 of the S was recorded. It appears the age of the victim was assessed to be 19 years and she also disclosed her age to be 19 years before the learned Judicial Magistrate. In her statement recorded under S she stated that her father and one friend of his father has been pressurizing her to marry somewhere else whereas she has already solemnized marriage and on 06.04.2025 she reached her matrimonial home and started living in her matrimonial home. On coming to know about lodging of the present case, she reached the police station. She further deposed that she was not kidnapped and she also showed her willingness to return to her matrimonial home. It further transpires that on 30.04.2025, the learned Judicial Magistrate-V took note of the statement of the victim girl recorded under S and made query from the victim girl as to where she wanted to go. Before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the victim girl stated that she wanted to go to her matrimonial home with her mother-in-law Sitbiya Devi, the petitioner herein. The petitioner was present before the court and she was allowed to take the victim girl with her to her house. It is pertinent to note here that the victim girl is claimed to have solemnized marriage with the son of the petitioner namely Vikash Kumar on 13.07.2024 and a certificate to this effect has been issued by Vedic Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Ghaziabad. Further the marriage has been registered on 15.07.2024 in accordance with Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. It also